|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
It's unfortunate that this election (and U.S. politics in general IMO) is reduced to nothing more than a popularity contest featuring strident and sensational partisan rhetoric from both sides; rhetoric that is almost totally devoid of any substantiated, reasoned argument (classical definition).
On both sides the so-called "facts" and conclusions are so rife with fallacy (untruths, incomplete accounts, errors in reasoning) as to be useless to anybody interested in an objective discussion about them.
If you believe (as I do) that in order for a democracy to flourish you must have a populace skilled in the classical form of "argument" and supported by an objective, unfettered and unaligned media skilled at discerning and reporting unbiased fact, then you must be terribly frustrated - because it seems clear to me that neither exist.
I would FULLY agree with this, as the swill and obfucation that has come from the bulk of the mass media here in the US is so one-sided that it's damn-near impossible to get an honest story that objectively looks at both sides and gives the population a chance to reflect over each side of the story.
It's also why I plow foreign papers and journals written for a different audience than the typical US public. I sincerely try to have a smattering of differing viewpoints before even trying to formulate my own...
...though that smattering doesn't consist of NBC, CBS or CNN very often.
I've even made it a habit to check out the English Al-Jazeera site every so often. How many here can say that?
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
...And therefore, IMO, quoting or referencing partisan journalists as a means to support or legitamize your argument should carry no weight.
Fair enough, though I was running short on time to dig deeper and find more reviews on the topic. He's what one supposed impartial political watchdog had to say about Cheney and Halliburton:
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
Which is PRECISELY the same thing that is being said in the "partisan" article I referened above. It's also pretty much the same information that the National Review has reported on in the past. I also recall the GAO talking to previous concerns of impropriety on Halliburton's part and referenced Cheney, which more or less exonerated him from any suspicion.
To sum up:
If I have distorted any commonly known or reported fact that you are aware of, by ALL means point it out to me. I felt I've been MORE than fair by agreeing that this administration hasn't done as good a job as it could have done in some areas, and that particular individuals in it should be given the boot due to a lack of foresight (Rumsfeld for starters). I felt as if I've tried to bring forth the cause and effect of the decisions that were made and why they were made (in light of the information that I've poured through since the Bush, Sr. days).
Conversely, all I hear and see from the other side of this argument is unsubstantiated and ill-informed speculation, falsehoods, oversimplification to the point of absurdity and a profound lack of understanding of US foreign policy over the past 50 years, even at a base level. It's the typical partisan "Bush is wrong and he LIED! Now what was the question?" attitude that is so aggrivating due to it's naievity. I expect it of 3rd graders; not folks that are supposed to have sound intellectual capacity and owe it to themselves to be more informed about the goings-on in the world that they claim to support or fight against.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
It's unfortunate that this election (and U.S. politics in general IMO) is reduced to nothing more than a popularity contest featuring strident and sensational partisan rhetoric from both sides; rhetoric that is almost totally devoid of any substantiated, reasoned argument (classical definition).
JaTo and Mysti-ken would have us believe that the entire election is just a partisan screaming match. JaTo and Mysti-ken are trying to convince us that the election is "devoid" of substance and it's "damn near impossible" to find out the truth on the issues. They are saying it's hardly possible for the average voter to come to a rational conclusion on the issues, so we shouldn't bother trying. What a sad, defeatist, and undemocratic attitude this is.
Of course the party campaigns themselves are rife with overstatement, even outright falsehoods. Of course it's difficult to find unbiased reports. That is the nature of presidential elections. But the fact that disagreement and disinformation exist does not make the campaigns "devoid of substance", not does it make it "impossible" to find the truth. And it does not make the election any less important.
Discussions like this one are a way to learn about the issues. There are reliable sources of information, many of which have been referenced here. Some of us were benefitting from the discussion. Unfortunately, this new diversion by JaTo and Mysti-ken now steers the conversation away from the pressing issues and into a philosphical sob about partisan campaigning.
Maybe JaTo just doesn't want anyone to discuss the real issues (like the war against terror), because he knows the majority of Americans now think Bush has screwed up badly and they no longer support his conduct of it. Notice that JaTo is once again changing the subject, just when we were all deep into discussing Bush's performance in the war on terror. He has done this so many times in this thread. He did the very same thing in the thread about Bush's domestic record. See a pattern here?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Conversely, all I hear and see from the other side of this argument is unsubstantiated and ill-informed speculation, falsehoods, oversimplification to the point of absurdity and a profound lack of understanding of US foreign policy over the past 50 years, even at a base level. It's the typical partisan "Bush is wrong and he LIED! Now what was the question?" attitude that is so aggrivating due to it's naievity. I expect it of 3rd graders; not folks that are supposed to have sound intellectual capacity and owe it to themselves to be more informed about the goings-on in the world that they claim to support or fight against.
JaTo is back in full insult-and-condescend mode. It seems that he cannot bring himself to credit his opponents with adult intelligence (I see we have been demoted from "high school" to "3rd grade" by JaTo), or even political sincerity. Fine. That tells us a lot more about JaTo than it does about his opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
And yet again, Red, you have managed to plug words into someone elses mouth. Even reading the exact quote you posted, and then your rebuttal clearly shows you are the one on the attack. Quote:
Maybe JaTo just doesn't want anyone to discuss the real issues (like the war against terror), because he knows the majority of Americans now think Bush has screwed up badly and they no longer support his conduct of it.
Ok, so where are your facts? Give us some links, Red. Prove your point, besides mindlessly spouting off again.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
...And therefore, IMO, quoting or referencing partisan journalists as a means to support or legitamize your argument should carry no weight.
Fair enough, though I was running short on time to dig deeper and find more reviews on the topic. He's what one supposed impartial political watchdog had to say about Cheney and Halliburton:
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
BTW - my comments above were directed at all posters here that support their position with partisan journalism and not you specifically.
Having said that, by using the term "supposed" you seem to indicate you doubt the impartiality of factcheck.org - do you?
Their mission and value statement makes it quite clear that this is their goal about factcheck - I guess it is for others to decide to what degree they succeed. For my part, a quick review of their articles since December 2003 suggests they are equally critical of both campaigns which is by no means absolute proof of impartiality, but it is a good indication.
Additionally, there are a number of articles that conclude they (factcheck)don't have enough information to conclude truth or not; which IMO is true to their stated journalistic and scholarly processes.
Interestingly, a quick search on this entire thread found only one reference to factcheck.org (yours in your previous post)and you referenced it rather selectively I think, to support the conclusions of an article that IMO could reasonably be called partisan. Although perhaps a little disingenuous on your part, it nonetheless does not invalidate your assertions in this case. ;-)
I think the difficult thing for both camps is that factcheck.org is highly critical of both parties ... so one is rather forced to accept their impartiality for good and bad references to their candidate; or for neither - which seems to be the case for the most part. After all, who wants to hear that both candidates for the Presidency are either out and out lying or grossly misleading the electorate? Although much more dangerous IMO, it seems easier for most people to believe that one candidate is lying/misleading about everything, and the other is nothing more than a victim of a specious campaign.
The degree to which mindless, irrelevant, misleading, malicious, and personal attacks on both candidates is influencing voters, is IMO hugely destructive to the democratic process.
And the degree to which, not only the campaigners, but also and especially the popular media is guilty of gross manipulation, is IMO a terrible indictment of the current American political environment.
Borrowing and paraphrasing a line from science: how can you trust the outcome if you can't trust the process?
Memo: the following are the errors in reasoning that I have identified so far in this thread and I probably missed quite a few: ad consequentiam, ad hominem, ad ignorantiam, ad misericordiam, ad verecundiam, questionable premise, straw man, suppressed evidence, sweeping generalization, tu quoque, unfalsifiability, biased statistic, weak analogy, willed ignorance, stereotyping.
Excellent tools to bash the opposition with, not so good if the goal is an honest, open and constructive dialogue on the pros and cons of two different positions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Mysti-ken, you said you identified many "errors in reasoning" in this thread, but you don't give any examples or explanation. As a result, I have no idea which posts you are talking about.
Please identify specific posts, and explain why you think there are errors in them.
Your contributions would be much more helpful if they were specific, rather than generalized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
...Otherwise, your post adds only background noise to the debate.
I think you are mistaking your posts for his there.
Simply because you don't have the facilities to follow a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and complex discussion doesn't mean that others can't. Part of the reason it's become so disjointed is that I've had to spend a FAIR portion of time correcting utter falsehoods instead of laying out an uninterrupted argument; some of those falsehoods which have been pushed by you...
Finally, you put little cohesive thought and cause/effect analysis behind your rhetoric.
Point in case? Your "coup de grace" seems to be "Bush lied" without backing an OUNCE of it up.
I've ASKED you a number of pointed questions; most if not all have gone unanswered. I've put forth links in past threads, as well as solid and valid arguments that entirely trash the swill you've been attempting to sell.
Your counter?
Throw up another tangent.
Background noise? Nice autobiography title there...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Please note that I said "errors in reasoning," which is considerably different "than errors in fact" and additionally I am using the term as it relates to the traditional definition that debaters would be familiar with.
As a means of giving examples, I have responded to your earlier post - I will be hitting submit in a moment.
In the meantime, if you look up the definitions of the types of fallacies I mentioned in that post, the errors I refer to will be immediately recognizable - and again, please note that I am not suggesting anything malicious or partisan about these errors in reasoning; they are most common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
With all due respect RED1998SVT, your post is a good example of the errors in reasoning I described in my previous post ... for example: Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
JaTo and Mysti-ken would have us believe that the entire election is just a partisan screaming match.
Your words not mine; your characterization, not mine. It is an example of "loaded language" intended to impute a value that was not in the original assertion.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
JaTo and Mysti-ken are trying to convince us that the election is "devoid" of substance and it's "damn near impossible" to find out the truth on the issues.
Who are you quoting here? It's not me. What's more, my reference to "devoid" modified "substantiated" - completely different than "substance."
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
And it does not make the election any less important.
Agreed - but in making this statement you are implying that I asserted originally that the election was in fact less important because of the nature of the campaigns. What line of reasoning did you use to deduce that?
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Discussions like this one are a way to learn about the issues. There are reliable sources of information, many of which have been referenced here.
I disagree with your assessment, and your other statements suggest you don't really think so either. IMO the truly impartial and objective sources are for the most part NOT referenced here. On the other hand, where I state that my view is opinion, you state your view as fact. Please substantiate.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Of course the party campaigns themselves are rife with overstatement, even outright falsehoods. Of course it's difficult to find unbiased reports. That is the nature of presidential elections.
You seem to characterize this state of affairs as being normal, or to be expected, or to be tolerated. Do you contend that this is a good way to conduct an election, or are you in fact yourself being "defeatist" by suggesting that "there's no way to change it, so don't bother commenting on it." And yes, that is a false attribution, I know you didn't actually use the words I put in quotations.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Unfortunately, this new diversion by JaTo and Mysti-ken now steers the conversation away from the pressing issues and into a philosphical sob about partisan campaigning.
I am sorry you feel that the veracity of claims made by the candidates in this election is an attempt to divert attention from the "pressing issues." IMO this is at the heart of the matter. How do you reconcile your two positions - that "party campaigns themselves are rife with overstatement, even outright falsehoods" and yet we should all concentrate on "the real issues" which apparently don't include honesty, accuracy and honor? IMO your positions are inconsistent.
What's more, your characterization of my comments as a "philosophical sob" lacks reasoning and is IMO intended to cloud the issue, not add value to the debate.
My assertion is that there are very real, very important and very practical considerations arising out of the way the campaigns in this election are being conducted. IMO the level of manipulation is unprecedented and as a result the U.S. voter is the worst for it.
The practical applications to this thread are 1) it would be helpful if debaters used other than clearly partisan sources to substantiate claims and support opinions, and also to quote the sources; 2) it would be helpful and considerate if posters did not use personal attacks on the intelligence or motives of others as a means to counter their assertions; and 3) wouldn't it be excellent if the most truly informed voters on Nov 2 were CEG'ers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
I don't live in Canada, so I don't know how you define an "error in reasoning" there. But here in the U.S., it means "illogical reasoning." In other words, it means drawing an irrational conclusion from a stated premise (for example, saying "All the short people I have met are mean. Therefore, all short people are mean."). "Error in reasoning" does not mean using "loaded language," or disagreeing with YOUR point of view. After reading your last post, I see you did not provide any examples of illogical reasoning from my posts. Every statement I have made follows logically from the premises I have stated. Want to try again to find an illogical statement in my posts?
It looks like you took a Rhetoric Theory class, but you didn't quiet understand the material.
Here on CEG you are welcome to opine on the election and the American electoral process. You are not welcome to highjack the thread that Rex started. We were discussing the topic of Bush's performance in the war on terror. We covered a number of meaningful points, and there are many left to cover. You have now steered us into a different topic: the quality of discourse in the American electoral process. Please start a different thread if you want to discuss that topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
In my post of 10/27/04 12:15 I reference â??error in reasoningâ? as a fallacy in the traditional definition of debaters; as follows: â??A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning." Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief.â? The example you cite is indeed a fallacy often called â??Affirming the consequentâ? or â??circular reasoning.â? â??Loaded languageâ? is also a fallacy sometimes called â??prejudicial languageâ? which refers to emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the reader to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so. Letâ??s look at some other examples: Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
I don't live in Canada, so I don't know how you define an "error in reasoning" there.
Your assertion in this post is that I am â??not welcome to highjack the thread that Rex startedâ? and that I â??have now steered us into a different topic:â? Either the above statement is irrelevant to your assertion or it is a veiled attempt to commit the fallacy of â??guilty by association.â? Or perhaps you are attempting the classic â??genetic fallacyâ? which is an attempt to discredit an argument by virtue of its origin.
And by the way â?¦ that choice that I just gave you is a fallacy called â??bifurcationâ? or â??false dilemma.â? Forcing a decision between only two choices where in fact many more may exist.
Additionally, you commit the fallacy of â??jumping to a conclusionâ? about where I live, (which I infer from your statement about where you donâ??t live) as well as the â??red herringâ? fallacy which is the introduction of an irrelevant issue intended to obscure the point.
There are dozens of examples of all of these fallacies, and many more, throughout this thread â??? posted by Kerry supporters as well as Bush supporters. Please do not â??jump to the conclusionâ? that this implies I believe all assertions to be false, or even that I believe those supported by fallacies are untrue.
The rest of your post contains similar examples, but in deference to the length of this one, Iâ??ll save them for later. Now to your assertions.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
"Error in reasoning" does not mean using "loaded language,"
In fact, it does â??? please see above.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
But here in the U.S., it means "illogical reasoning."
Okay, but this would appear to be irrelevant â??? your definition here is not substantially different from the one Iâ??m using.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
After reading your last post, I see you did not provide any examples of illogical reasoning from my posts.
This in no way refutes my assertion â??? the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. (A good line for Bush supporters in reference to WMD, donâ??t you think? ;-) )
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Every statement I have made follows logically from the premises I have stated.
You stating so, doesn't make it so. There are many who disagree with you here. But perhaps their evidence features the same fallacies.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Want to try again to find an illogical statement in my posts?
No thank you, because the subject I refer to is "error in reasoning" as a "fallacy" and not what you think is logical - not even close to the same thing. Instead, Iâ??d rather you would restate all your assertions, this time quoting your non-partisan sources, and making sure you engage in no fallacy. Obviously time constraints preclude either one of us from doing so.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
It looks like you took a Rhetoric Theory class, but you didn't quiet understand the material.
In addition to â??red herringâ? and â?¦ never mind. This has no relevance to whether or not my points are correct, whether or not I am hijacking this thread, and whether or not I have steered us into a different direction; which I suppose is exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Here on CEG you are welcome to opine on the election and the American electoral process.
Thank you â??? I read the rules and try to abide by them.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
You are not welcome to highjack the thread that Rex started.
Understood â??? I am happy to abide by Mr. Barneâ??s wishes and/or the direction of a moderator. Unless you are a moderator, however, I do not accept your authority to make the decision.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
We covered a number of meaningful points, and there are many left to cover.
If you mean unsubstantiated, full of rhetoric, full of fallacy points, I guess you might be on to something.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
You have now steered us into a different topic: the quality of discourse in the American electoral process.
It is true I have made comment about the electoral process in this thread. In every instance, however, I have tried to make a direct connection to the intent of this thread, which as you will recall started with Mr. Barnes list. I sense from your tone that you believe I directed my original comments about unsubstantiated claims at you; I assure you, I did not.
However, after patiently waiting for an intelligent dialogue to begin on what I think is a subject of paramount importance (thank you Mr. Barnes), what I spent my time reading was tantamount to name calling and â??Heâ??s an idiot, you support him, therefore youâ??re an idot.â?
And although I happen to believe much of what was in Mr. Barneâ??s list, I am also not so na?¯ve to think that what I know as absolute, unadulterated fact, outweighs what I donâ??t know. Can you say differently? I am not a fanatic ... and so by virtue of definition, I leave my mind open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Please start a different thread if you want to discuss that topic.
Only if you promise not to post ;-)
Seriously - Mr. Barnes if you feel my input is unwelcome, I will respect your wishes and go to "read only" mode.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
